Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 with the laws enacted by the Legislature pursuant to Article 19B. 117 As the Judge rightly pointed out (at [98] of the Judgment), the relevant text of the Explanatory Statement roughly mirrors the text of both Art 19B and Art 164. It is therefore incapable of adding anything significant to the understanding which one may already glean from reading the provisions themselves. The Explanatory Statement too is therefore of limited utility and need not be considered. (3) The Parliamentary debates 118 We turn finally to the Parliamentary debates. One difficulty we must be mindful of and guard against in ascertaining legislative purpose from the Parliamentary record is that the debates feature different statements by various MPs, from which the court must extract the collective will and intent of Parliament. As we earlier indicated, we must also carefully assess whether the Parliamentary statements relied on are directed to the point in dispute. 119 In our judgment, our construction of the relevant provisions of the Constitution is directly confirmed by the only part of the Parliamentary debates that addressed the specific issue that is before us (namely, when the reserved election model was to take effect and what was the extent of Parliament’s power when it came to specifying the first term under Art 164). This was covered in PM Lee’s speech which stated, in relevant part (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (8 November 2016) vol 94): When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year. 58